Twitter Challenges Court Ruling That Twitter Users Have No Standing To Protect Their Own Account Info

from the good-for-them dept

We've seen that Twitter has taken a legal stance in the past to try to protect the rights of its users against the government, and it appears to be doing so again. The State of New York has filed a lawsuit against Malcolm Harris, an Occupy Wall St. protestor who was charged with disorderly conduct. Harris has a Twitter account at @destructuremal, and the government issued an infamous 2703(d) order to compel Twitter to hand over information about Harris' Twitter account. Twitter, as it should, informed Harris of the request, and Harris sought to quash the order. Amazingly, the court refused, not because it disagreed with the stance, but because it claimed that Harris had no standing to challenge the disclosure of his own information, by literally claiming that Harris had no interest in his own tweets.

This was based on a total misreading of Twitter's terms of service, which have been clear from very early on that poster's retain control over the content in their tweets. All they do is grant Twitter a license to display them. The NY court, bizarrely, interpreted this to mean the user gave up control over the tweets, even though Twitter's own terms of service say exactly the opposite.

In response, Twitter has now stood up for its user and filed its own motion in support of Harris, that the April 20th order stating that Harris had no standing should be rejected. It points to the above, as well as to US law that says users can challenge 2703(d) orders. On top of that, it points out that complying clearly seems to violate the 4th Amendment. In an interesting argument, it relies on the recently decided Jones case that said that even if certain information is "public" (e.g., location or tweets), it may still require a warrant to collect.

As Twitter notes, saying that its users can't move to quash such requests sets a problematic precedent:
If the Order stands, Twitter will be put in the untenable position of either providing user communications and account information in response to all subpoenas or attempting to vindicate its users’ rights by moving to quash these subpoenas itself--even though Twitter will often know little or nothing about the underlying facts necessary to support their users’ argument that the subpoenas may be improper.
It's nice to see a company like Twitter standing up for its users. It's unfortunately rare these days, when many companies simply roll over the second the government comes calling.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), May 8th, 2012 @ 2:50pm

    It's official:

    I'm now "for" twitter.

    Previously I was undecided, but this seals the deal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), May 8th, 2012 @ 3:01pm

    Like this has never happened before.
    This is just another way the courts are finding new fun ways to make sure that "bad people" get what they deserve. The problem is that most of these "bad people" are merely people the Government does not like and might infact not have broken any laws. Once upon at time you could trust that if a Government lawyer brought you something it was truthful and legit, this is no longer the case.
    Judge Howell deciding Does have no interest in a 3rd party getting their information until they are named in a lawsuit.
    The Judge in the dajaz1 case who blindly kept signing orders, ignoring deadlines, and keeping the defense lawyers locked out of the case.
    The Hutari (sp) Militia case.
    And I am willing to bet there are tons more of these cases where Judges make rulings based on "but the Government guys wear white hats".
    The entire point of laws is to make sure that it is balance not just signed off on because the Government wants it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      :Lobo Santo (profile), May 8th, 2012 @ 3:15pm

      Re: Interesting

      Kinda all comes back around to "personal responsibility" and "personal rights".

      When nobody takes personal responsibility for ensuring everybody's personal rights, bad things are apparently just bound to happen.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2012 @ 3:01pm

    and yet again the government, through the court, seems to be dismissing citizens rights. i was of the opinion that judges were supposed to understand legal documentation, then do their best to preserve peoples rights, not throw them away

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2012 @ 3:14pm

      Re:

      Judges aren't stupid; they know where their paycheques (and "bonuses") come from.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Planespotter (profile), May 8th, 2012 @ 3:29pm

        Re: Re:

        No forgetting future political appointments in SCOTUS or within Government itself.. I'm sure a few ex judges sit as directors of companies.

        Every monkey needs greasing.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 9th, 2012 @ 7:05am

        Re: Re:

        In the US, Federal judges receive lifetime appointments and cannot be removed except in extremely rare circumstances. That is so "losing their job" based on a decision rendered does not become part of the calculus. Nor do they receive bonuses. Everything else you got right though.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Darby_O'Gill (profile), May 8th, 2012 @ 3:50pm

    its about time twitter start protecting their users account info, i will never trust them, look at these examples of people sold out by twitter and facebook regardless whether or not you agree with the outcomes.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17515992

    http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-2009 3364.html

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Beech, May 8th, 2012 @ 4:31pm

    Oh come on, Chubby-Lobby-Boy-Maznack. Isn't it time to admit that this site is bought and paid for by big tweet? Everyone with two braincells to rub together knows that twitter gets all it's money by turning a blind eye to all the terrorists terrorizing each other with terror-inducing tweets. This move by twitter is only making it easier for the terrorists!

    /troll

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2012 @ 7:31pm

      Re:

      oh no terrorist tweeters ... tweetorrists we must let the government unmask these villains before they destroy 'merica

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2012 @ 4:50pm

    Rockin' Robin

    Tweet Tweet

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 9th, 2012 @ 2:46am

    In the future, its actions like these that'll get a company what they should be after.....trust.......and a by product........customers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Thomas (profile), May 9th, 2012 @ 5:19am

    smart judges..

    do whatever the government spooks tell them to do. It is not a question of law; it is a question of the judge's health. If he doesn't do what the federal Gestapo wants, he could find himself on a one way flight to Gitmo.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Michael, May 9th, 2012 @ 5:48am

    An absolute disgrace!

    Both the Constitution and Bill of Rights were bought and paid for with the blood of our ancestors. Apparently their sacrifice was in vain as we are being governed by traitors who spit on our rights whenever convenient. Pretty shameful when a private corporation places more value on our rights than a judge.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 9th, 2012 @ 6:26am

    There is no 4th amendment in NYC

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This